| Dim | Dimension | Score | Weight | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Definitional Precision | 6 | 12% | 490% VERIFICATION FAILURE: 'reportedly increased by 490%' — source, methodology, and definition not identified |
| D2 | Classification Rigor | N/A | 18% | — |
| D3 | Case Capture & Sampling | N/A | 15% | — |
| D4 | Coverage Symmetry | 7 | 15% | Institutional Swap Test requires external verification across comparable cases |
| D5 | Source Independence | 7 | 10% | piieindia.org (6 citations) — provenance and advocacy positions require verification |
| D6 | Verification Standards | 5 | 18% | 490% figure unverifiable against cited source — most widely cited statistic has no traceable methodology |
| D7 | Transparency & Governance | 8 | 5% | — |
| D8 | Counter-Evidence | 5 | 7% | No limitations section; Early Warning Project model contestation not acknowledged |
| Composite Score | 6.2 | Adequate | ||
Scope: 'Hate speech by public figures reportedly increased by 490%' — the original caveat 'reportedly' signals the authors knew provenance was uncertain. This figure has been cited in congressional testimony, UN submissions, and media as USHMM-established fact. The source, methodology, and definition behind the 490% figure remain unidentified.
Scope: No limitations section. Early Warning Project model limitations not disclosed. Counter-evidence to atrocity risk framing (functioning democratic institutions, opposition electoral wins) not acknowledged.
Scope: The 90% figure (BJP politicians) lacks a visible primary source with documented methodology. Policy reports are evaluated primarily on citation accuracy; this figure does not meet that standard.
490% VERIFICATION FAILURE: 'reportedly increased by 490%' — source, methodology, and definition not identified
'Dangerous speech' referenced against Benesch framework — a genuine definitional strength. The Early Warning Project model is cited with documentation. The critical definitional failure is the 490% figure: cited as 'reportedly' without identifying whose definition of 'hate speech' produced that measurement, what the counting methodology was, or whether the figure has been independently verified. For a policy report, citation accuracy is the primary D1 concern, and this is a significant unverified citation on the most politically significant quantitative claim.
Not applicable for Policy Report type.
Not applicable for Policy Report type.
Institutional Swap Test requires external verification across comparable cases
Document scope — India country-level mass atrocity risk — matches title and content. The Early Warning Project covers multiple countries, providing evidence of institutional scope symmetry. Institutional Swap Test: does USHMM's Simon-Skjodt Center apply the same analytical standards and evidential thresholds to comparable cases (anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh and Pakistan, anti-Christian violence in Nigeria)? Score of 7 reflects adequate internal scope-claim alignment with a flag for the institutional comparison requiring external verification.
piieindia.org (6 citations) — provenance and advocacy positions require verification
Source profile is the strongest in the non-survey portion of the calibration corpus. Top five domains: cfr.org (24), state.gov (18), uscirf.gov (12), ohchr.org (11), hrw.org (10) — all established independent institutions. USHMM as US government museum is genuinely independent from the private advocacy ecosystem, though it introduces US foreign policy perspective as a potential influence. piieindia.org (6 citations) requires a provenance trace — institutional identity and advocacy positions not confirmed.
490% figure unverifiable against cited source — most widely cited statistic has no traceable methodology
Policy report D6 assesses citation accuracy: do statistical claims appear in and accurately represent their cited sources? The 490% figure is the critical failure: presented with 'reportedly' but no citation to the original methodology. The 90% figure (politicians involved being BJP members) also lacks a visible primary source. Strong sourcing for contextual and historical claims. The institutional sourcing infrastructure is adequate; the specific quantitative claims driving the report's policy conclusions are not independently verifiable.
The strongest D7 score in the non-survey portion of the calibration corpus. USHMM is a US federal institution with full transparency: Congressional funding, public governance, named professional staff, peer-reviewed statistical model (Early Warning Project) with documented methodology. This is what institutional authority should look like. The contrast with the unverified 490% figure is the core tension of this report: the institutional infrastructure is research-grade but the specific quantitative claim most widely cited is not.
No limitations section; Early Warning Project model contestation not acknowledged
A 6,614-word policy brief from an institution with the USHMM's authority should include a limitations section. The Early Warning Project statistical model has been contested in academic literature — those contests are not referenced. Evidence of India's democratic institutions functioning (Supreme Court rulings, opposition electoral wins, press freedom) is not acknowledged as counter-evidence to the atrocity risk framing. The 'What to Watch' section identifies only risk escalation factors, not risk mitigation factors.
How this report's findings have been cited or applied after publication. Severity reflects the gap between what the report establishes and how it was represented.
Claimed scope: The Holocaust Museum documented a 490% increase in hate speech in India
Established scope: The brief said 'reportedly increased by 490%' — the source and methodology of this figure are unidentified
Congressional citations that attribute '490%' directly to USHMM strip the 'reportedly' caveat and present an unverified figure as institutionally established. This is the most consequential citation ecosystem failure in the calibration corpus by policy impact.
Claimed scope: Independent empirical evidence of atrocity risk in India
Established scope: Policy brief synthesizing secondary sources — not primary empirical research
Citing this brief as independent empirical evidence misrepresents its document type. It synthesizes existing reports and statistical models; it does not conduct original research.
Claimed scope: USHMM research documenting India atrocity risk
Established scope: Policy brief — not peer-reviewed research
Academic citations that do not disclose the document type misrepresent the brief's evidentiary status.
Claimed scope: International institutional warning about BJP governance
Established scope: Risk assessment policy brief — Early Warning Project model produces probabilistic assessments, not predictions or political judgments
Use of USHMM's institutional authority for domestic Indian electoral purposes is a scope escalation the brief's authors could not have anticipated and would likely not endorse.